The Discourse of Brenton Tarrant White Supremacist Mass Murderer- Deconstructed
This is a deconstruction of the Introduction of the document titled: “The Great Replacement” attributed to Brenton Tarrant. In the introduction Tarrant reveals his worldview, the discourse that drives his worldview and the action that arises from this discourse which he embraced.
Paragraph 1: the discourse insists that that there is a powerful and potent reason for rage, rage against going gently, meekly submissively into the good night. For the light is dying whilst those of the light are meekly submitting to the wilful death of the light by submissively accepting the darkness, the absence, the banishing of the light which is the night for those of the light. The people of the light are wilfully destroying the light and themselves by propagating the darkness of night and the people of the night. What is now strategically necessary is action by the people of the light to end this slide to extinction by their own hands. Rage must now be expressed in action and Tarrant and his attack on two masjids during the Jumaah prayers is action driven by rage taken by a soldier to save the people of light. This action will bring reaction from the people of light, from his father and this is what Tarrant seeks reaction whether rejection or acceptance, what is sought is rage. Without soldiers willing and capable of illustrating graphically what is the problem and how to deal with it there will be no rage only submission, apathy and denial that affords acceptance of the death of the light and the people of the light. Rage against the people of the darkness and their agenda to destroy the light is fundamentally necessary and must be generated utilising rage graphically expressed publicly through violence.
Paragraphs 1 & 2: The dying of the light is the product of the birth rate of the European race compared to the non-white races of the world. Tarrant suffers from a paranoid fear of a black planet. The white race simply does not have the fertility rate necessary to replicate the race at the volume necessary to stem the threat posed by the fertility rates of the non-whites of the black planet. Because of this fertility rate, the white race is an aging race growing progressively incapable of replicating itself physically, culturally and defending itself in the face of the growing threat of the black planet. But in spite of this disastrous white fertility rate the population of the white lands are growing because if the immigration of non-whites into white lands. The white race is then importing their genocide willingly as the non-whites they open the white lands to are procreating at a third world rate where they will soon turn the white lands into black lands exterminating white people, the people of the light and white civilisation creating a bastardised replacement at best.
Paragraphs 3 & 4: White people, white politicians are then willingly enabling an invasion of non-whites into white lands. These are not immigrants but invaders invited in by white people devoid of rage and these invaders must be repelled by rage expressed violently. Failure to rage against the invaders results in the replacement of white with black, of light with dark and white genocide in the white lands. Every single white person who fails to rage is then a race traitor, a fifth columnist who constitutes a greater threat than the invaders and must be dealt with the rage/violence instrument of power.
Paragraph 5: there are two grave threats to the white lands: the inadequate fertility rate where the race is not replicating itself at the required rate to be a vibrant race and the imminent, clear and present danger posed by non-white immigration with higher fertility rates than the whites into white lands. These immigrants are invaders and must be immediately deported from white lands and all non-white immigration to white lands ended. To raise the white fertility rate requires a re-conceptualisation of white civilisation which can never be accomplished under the assault presented by non-white mass immigration. But the culture that drives the low fertility rate embraces mass non-white immigration thereby constituting a threat that arises from within white society. Tarrant has then to deal with in fact two threats: the threat posed by white generators of ruling discourse and white politicians and the threat posed by the invaders. He then chose to express his rage/violence against the black threat that is constituted by white power relations rather than expressions of white power itself. Tarrant is not then McVeigh and Breivik, his action is driven by hatred for a specific type of invader that he places in a specific category separate and apart from all invaders. Tarrant is then simply another white male supremacist driven to kill niggers all assembled, open, vulnerable, a soft target. Tarrant is the Islamic State of white supremacist terror whilst Mc Vie and Breivik were the Al Qaeda. Tarrant speaks from the racist mutually exclusive binary duality of Manicheistic western discourse. On the level of personal action, he has to show how the action he chose and executed in Christchurch fits into his discourse of the western fertility rate and the challenge of the mass immigration invader. Specifically, because he refused to address the salient issue of white complicity with and enabling their own demise as the race of light whilst choosing to kill only Muslim invaders in a backwater of the white world in the war against the black invaders: New Zealand. The rest of the Introduction of his supposed text is devoted to justifying his choice of target and action in New Zealand.
Paragraph 6 to the end of the Introduction
In this body of discourse Tarrant presents his discourse of action, the strategic choice he made, the nature of his instrument of violence and its strategic expectations.
Tarrant insists that he is a white soldier standing in battle against the non-white invader of white lands. He chooses not to act on the other side of the equation which is the white power relations that are constituting the grave threat to the white race. His only concern is wielding an instrument of violence against invaders that will set in train specific actions and reactions that will hasten the onset of a race war between whites and non-whites in the white lands. Tarrant is a zealot because he is a penitente for all the years he did nothing to resist the non-white onslaught caught up in his white self-absorbed nihilist worldview and lifestyle. Now that he is born again, white resolute soldier defender of his race he is seeking absolution for his past sins through his personal attack on a group of invaders that are exceptional invaders: Muslims constituted by Islam.
Tarrant insists that Islam through the ages has posed the gravest threat to Europe and so it’s today with the terrorist attacks and the waves of mass immigration from Muslim lands. Tarrant sees Muslims and Islam as the most potent invader threat that demands war be waged on by white folks. Islam and Muslims are the most despised group of invaders in white lands, to attack them wins widespread affirmation and support. Muslims by their group solidarity, cohesiveness, group discipline, high fertility rate, and a common will to conquer the Kaffirun by proselytization and war present the gravest threat to the white lands and must be unmercifully, graphically attacked in the white lands. Tarrant the penitente in search of redemption will now contribute but one stick of fire to the necessary conflagration that is strategically necessary. Tarrant insists that he is not Islamophobic as Muslims are a real threat in white lands, evict them from white lands and the threat is defused, keep them in their Muslim lands and there is no reason for war. This is not then aggression but self-defence where a race is faced with terminal peril in their own lands. Tarrant then sets out to attack Muslims gathered together conveniently to maximise the kill ratio, to graphically commit mass murder whilst streaming the act of mass murder live over the web. For the act must resonate by impacting the social order not only of New Zealand but of the white world and the East and South Asia to spur retaliatory killings by Muslims of whites as in Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Thailand, Bangladesh and India, and whites of Muslims in white lands. Tarrant devised a terrorist act with the intent of spurring a Muslim/white war in the Asia-Pacific region. It was a Bali bombing in reverse. Tarrant chose New Zealand for the following reasons: the operational terrain was less charged than Australia or Europe, there is no capital punishment, the weaponry and other operational inputs were all available on the open market and a Muslim Ummah was available within easy reach comprising members drawn from key Muslim lands of Asia. He attacked and killed Muslims in Christchurch who were invaders from Muslim lands that he wanted to launch revenge attacks against the Kaffirun/white people in these Muslim lands. Most of all he dreams today of a Muslim attack in New Zealand by Muslim invaders welcomed to New Zealand by the white fifth columnists ideally by a survivor or survivors of his attack. His attack on the Muslim invaders gathered for the Jumaah prayers in Christchurch specifically sought to slaughter as the first priority, the traitors of the Ummah gathered in the two masjids. The traitors are white converts to Islam who have in fact surrendered to darkness by walking away from the light of their race. They have turned their back on their race by accepting the domination, servility and genocide of their race by the Muslim invaders. White converts to Islam are then the most potent race enemy of the race of light and this threat posed must be neutered by extermination of this most potent of race enemies. This is Tarrant’s equivalent discourse to Islamic State’s discourse of Takfir/Takfiri. Tarrant insists that there are no innocents in an invasion that is in fact the colonisation of white lands and its people of the light. Hence all those in the masjids on that fateful Friday were fair game: children, women, the aged, the infirm etc. In fact, children of the invaders followed the traitors in the order of prime targets as invader children grow up to be invaders which necessitates an active program of infanticide.
Tarrant states that the attack was an end in itself as it was totally necessary to realise the strategy to contribute to a shooting war with the invaders in the white lands driven by tit for tat killings in both the white and Muslim lands. But he points out that his intention was to survive the attack and to remain alive in jail for a long time awaiting the white revolution to expel the invaders and to banish the white fifth columnists and with failure to realise the revolution he will then take his own life. Tarrant believes that people will soon forget what motivated his mass murder but they will never forget the act itself and the manner in which he executed the slaughter hence the need to ensure that it was done in the most graphically violent manner possible and streamed live via social media. Those who survived the attack, or viewed the event live will never forget the graphic violence as those who viewed the recording of the events as he intended to generate post-traumatic stress etching forever on their memories the event. And out of this trauma there will arise copycats as with Harris and Klebold who did not live stream their mass murder. Long after he is incarcerated his action will continue to generate victims among those who survived the actual attack and those who were live spectators of the event. His will be an action in a war that will keep on resonating with the families of the victims, the survivors and the live spectators at minimum. Tarrant has then left a palpable and potent legacy to the survival of the white race and he intends to be alive to see it reach to fruition. Tarrant knows that his action will be replicated as the white lands of the West today are replete with an over-abundance of targets meriting slaughter both invaders and traitors. All that is needed then is commitment to the war as the terrain of the West is littered with targets ripe for the killing. All nations of the West faced with this grave danger posed by the invaders and traitors who respond with tolerance and apathy are dying nations as they have accepted the inevitability of white genocide and the blackening of the white lands. To rage against this white spineless acceptance of white genocide distinguishes white men and women from white traitors. To rage is to kill and to die, simply deal with it. This is Tarrant’s equivalent discourse of the Shahid.
The glaring closeness of the discourse of Tarrant and Islamic State especially discloses the reality that they are both the product of white supremacist colonial imperialist discourse of the West as it impacts white and Muslim lands in the past and presently.